Brahms' Third Symphony

[Drasko]

Maybe someone else would have different opinion, so I've uploaded entire finale for anyone to hear:
[mp3=200,20,0,left]http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/7/24/2018019/mravlenbrahms3fin.mp3[/mp3]   

None? How boring.

[MishaK]

None? How boring.

I have this recording in the BMG/RCA incarnation. It's not my favorite third by a long shot, but I do find it very interesting in terms of how Mravinsky treats a number of passages. I hear what you mean about this movement not really clicking. It's a little disjointed. There are moments of real drama, but it seems disconnected from the action in between. There are two things that I think are the source of this: firstly, the orchestra/conductor seems to lose the dramatic thread here and there and they fall back into a kind of disengaged routine for just long enough to make the whole not quite want to connect. Secondly, there is always an undercurrent of discomfort in Brahms. Either the harmonies or the rhythms aren't quite straight. Something is always not quite what it 'should' be. What seems major can turn into minor at the blink of an eye and any given passage is usually pregnant with the possibility of that happening at any moment. But what the Leningraders do here is that they play the more joyous moments with near total nonchalance, without a trace of a cloud in the sky, with no portent of tragedy. So when that big crashing chord hits, it seems to come out of nowhere, not linked to what was going on before. It just doesn't seem to develop quite organically. This may indeed be a balancing issue, with bass line pedal points not adequately stressed. They are often the ones that often unsettle things.

[MishaK]

For instance I can tolerate huge amount of extraneous noises and other approximations of historical recordings while can't stand typical Chandos modern recording finding it diffuse and undefined while most would call that same Chandos sound state of the art, but at the same time I like the sound of Christophe Rousset's Bach recordings on Ambroisie, which some consider wet and over reverberant.

And thanks for that, too! I have the same reaction, but tell that to our old friend M and he will have you hanged, verbally at least.    I will qualify that this is somewhat a result of the equipment used for the playback. Some recordings just sound vastly better on speakers and some better on headphones. I am still convinced that the popularity of Karajan and Solti recordings among the general public has a lot to do with the fact that they sound "rich" or "exciting" on crappy stereo equipment, while said crappy equipment can't do justice to recordings that actually closely approximate the sound of the performance they're meant to reproduce.

[Drasko]

I have this recording in the BMG/RCA incarnation. It's not my favorite third by a long shot, but I do find it very interesting in terms of how Mravinsky treats a number of passages. I hear what you mean about this movement not really clicking. It's a little disjointed. There are moments of real drama, but it seems disconnected from the action in between. There are two things that I think are the source of this: firstly, the orchestra/conductor seems to lose the dramatic thread here and there and they fall back into a kind of disengaged routine for just long enough to make the whole not quite want to connect. Secondly, there is always an undercurrent of discomfort in Brahms. Either the harmonies or the rhythms aren't quite straight. Something is always not quite what it 'should' be. What seems major can turn into minor at the blink of an eye and any given passage is usually pregnant with the possibility of that happening at any moment. But what the Leningraders do here is that they play the more joyous moments with near total nonchalance, without a trace of a cloud in the sky, with no portent of tragedy. So when that big crashing chord hits, it seems to come out of nowhere, not linked to what was going on before. It just doesn't seem to develop quite organically. This may indeed be a balancing issue, with bass line pedal points not adequately stressed. They are often the ones that often unsettle things.

Still boring since we're mostly agreed . Yes, there does sound to be some discrepancy in approach between generally laid back and relaxed shaping of lyrical parts (rather than routine) and intensity with which tutti kick in, plus Mravinsky's preferred rather sharp dynamic shifts, which also can add to the feeling of disjointedness.

It's not my favorite third by a long shot...

Which would be?

[Drasko]

I am still convinced that the popularity of Karajan and Solti recordings among the general public has a lot to do with the fact that they sound "rich" or "exciting" on crappy stereo equipment, while said crappy equipment can't do justice to recordings that actually closely approximate the sound of the performance they're meant to reproduce.

Could be, never really thought about that.

And thanks for that, too! I have the same reaction, but tell that to our old friend M and he will have you hanged, verbally at least.

He, he. Didn't know he was keen on 'warm' acoustics. I remember he agreed with me about acoustic of Wands Lubeck Bruckner recordings being unacceptable. Shame he managed to get himself hanged in the end, while even kitsch-artist and religious fanatic over whom he got banned is back among us. Oh, golly, what joy.   

[MishaK]

Which would be?

I'm not entirely sure... I like Wand/NDR, I like Abbado/Dresden, Barenboim/CSO... have yet to get my paws on Kempe.

I remember he agreed with me about acoustic of Wands Lubeck Bruckner recordings being unacceptable.

Churches are problematic in general. I don't know if you've seen the 1992 BPO European Concert. At the end of the first movement of the Schubert 8 (I think) there is a moment after the final chord ends and a few seconds later Barenboim looks at the ceiling with an expression as if to say "What?! The reverb *still* isn't over?!"

[Drasko]

I like Abbado/Dresden...

Now that is something I'd love to hear. That's early 70s cycle with four different orchestras? Didn't know it was ever released on CD, and after checking it seems it has been, on Belart, used copies are not exactly cheap though.

Churches are problematic in general. I don't know if you've seen the 1992 BPO European Concert. At the end of the first movement of the Schubert 8 (I think) there is a moment after the final chord ends and a few seconds later Barenboim looks at the ceiling with an expression as if to say "What?! The reverb *still* isn't over?!"

I know. Just recently listened to potentially very interesting recording of Mozart Requiem (Malgoire on K617) ruined by church reverb, unintelligible words, skewed orchestral balances, a pity.
Haven't seen that 1992 European Concert, but the final chord is the least problem, that one you can let bounce around.

[MishaK]

Now that is something I'd love to hear. That's early 70s cycle with four different orchestras? Didn't know it was ever released on CD, and after checking it seems it has been, on Belart, used copies are not exactly cheap though.

I don't know about CD, I have it on LP. The 2nd with BPO was reissued on CD as part of the DG centennial collection.

Haven't seen that 1992 European Concert, but the final chord is the least problem, that one you can let bounce around.

Yes, but it's a hilarious moment on the video. It was filmed at the Basilica of the Escorial in Spain.

[Renfield]

Speaking of the Brahms 3rd, and even though I've still not had time (yes, I know ) to revisit the Mravinsky, I did just listen to part of the Chailly cycle, which I received as a present for my birthday a few weeks back, including the 3rd.


And it really is a 3rd worth mentioning, I think, least of all for the fact that it really is sumptuously recorded and played. I'm not usually one of those people who gush over a recording purely on the basis of how it sounds, but here, the difference is marked.

Also, more importantly, although it seems to suffer from the general 'under-reading' that I feel is a thread running through most of Chailly's work sans his Mahler, it's more his rarely pressing dramatic points, or wilfully generating gravitas, than any lack of cohesion to blame. Case in point, the finale is one of the most impressive I've heard in a modern recording, likely for the very fact that it flows without losing its thrust in the process - consistent with Chailly's measure bearing fruit, vs. an 'accidentally' good reading.

So well worth hearing, I'd say, even if not in the very first tier. Similar to what I'd say for Barenboim's CSO reading on account of the third movement, if that gives you any further indication as to where I rank it; if you will, a solid A-.

[MishaK]

Speaking of Brahms symphonies, has anyone heard the Janowski set that has been praised to the heavens?

[Renfield]

Speaking of Brahms symphonies, has anyone heard the Janowski set that has been praised to the heavens?

The Pentatone? I think it was mentioned before around here. Personally, I've heard the 4th, which I liked. Given how much I also like his earlier 3rd from Liverpool (IIRC; quite an under-appreciated recording), though, I likely should invest in the new one...

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Also, more importantly, although it seems to suffer from the general 'under-reading' that I feel is a thread running through most of Chailly's work sans his Mahler, it's more his rarely pressing dramatic points, or wilfully generating gravitas, than any lack of cohesion to blame.

Not to digress, but:

Just a quick note to say that overall I find Chailly quite accomplished in his interpretive choices over a broad range of repertoire, with a nod to his prowess in 20th century music.

I enjoy his skill at drawing in any number of musical elements to weave a tight, controlled musical line that needn't be pestered by finicky "dramatic" eruptions (not that there's anything wrong with drama, of course). It's this very 'cohesion' (as you put it) that draws me in to Chailly's musical vision. And seldom have I been let down.

Sorry, digression over...

[MishaK]

No problem with the digression. I do like Chailly a lot in a variety of stuff, but found his Brahms recordings disappointingly uninvolved.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

No problem with the digression. I do like Chailly a lot in a variety of stuff, but found his Brahms recordings disappointingly uninvolved.

I used to own Chailly's recording of the second symphony and, to be honest, had the same misgivings (haven't heard the rest of the cycle).

Which took me by surprise initially. I had been used to Chailly really passing muster at every turn but sadly had to admit defeat with this one. Oh, well. A bad day? Bad days? Or pressed into service to record the cycle by Decca?

Although, admittedly, Renfield's description of the third intrigues me.

[Drasko]

I don't know about CD, I have it on LP. The 2nd with BPO was reissued on CD as part of the DG centennial collection.

http://www.amazon.de/Sinfonie-3-Claudio-Abbado/dp/B000026HMS

BPO 2nd should be also on Eloquence.

[ccar]

Thank you for the information, I'll edit my previous post accordingly. Kenzo Amoh's Mravinsky discography also confirms about Memoria release being misdated, but it has not been updated recently so it doesn't include Doremi set. I'm guessing Doremi dates should be correct for 1st and 4th (there's only one 1st and the 4th sounds like 70s recording). Would you know if the 2nd is dated correctly?

The DOREMI Brahms S2 (dated 12 Jun 1978) is identical to the JVC VDC-1010 edition (dated 12-13 Jun 1978). Comparative listening, particularly of the last mov., leaves me little doubt they were taken from the same performance. The recording date should indeed be June the 12th and not the 13th (this should be a live recording from the Mravinsky-Leningrad appearance at the Vienna Festival and the Brahms D major was performed on the 12th).
The Melodyia (1000801) and the Memoria (991006) editions are also identical to each other but probably from another performance - in the same year but at the St.Petersburg/Leningrad Philharmonic Great Hall on April 29th.
It is very interesting to compare these two Mravinsky recordings (April and June) because in many details they are very similar and almost look the same performance. If you compare the timings of the first 3 movements they are almost exactly the same.

Carlos 
         

[MishaK]

http://www.amazon.de/Sinfonie-3-Claudio-Abbado/dp/B000026HMS

Have you heard that? I make a big circle around Belart ever since owning their transfer of Kubelik's 1959 VPO Ma Vlast which had the most horrid congested sound of any recording I've ever owned.

[Renfield]

I used to own Chailly's recording of the second symphony and, to be honest, had the same misgivings (haven't heard the rest of the cycle).

[...]

Although, admittedly, Renfield's description of the third intrigues me.

For what it's worth, I found the 2nd, on the same disc, less notable than the 3rd; indeed, 'uninvolved' wouldn't necessarily be that uncharitable a descriptor. And the same approach afflicts the 3rd's 1st movement as well, this fact being on the '-' side of the 'A-'.

[ccar]

An excellent third which doesn't fully work for me. Mravinsky is surprisingly relaxed in Brahms, if I'd say gentle nobody would believe me, so I won't. Not rhapsodic though, there is no singing out of phrase endings or indulgent tempos, but soloists are given ample time, nothing is rushed and there is very little of the drivenness usually associated with Mravinsky. Most astonishing is the huge dynamic range of orchestra and even more control of those dynamics by Mravinsky, from deafening tutti to pianissimo in a blink of an eye. Given that it is live, concert recording orchestra plays superb, no missed cues, no noticeable fluffs, tight ensemble. Recorded sound is surprisingly good, up close and clear with good dynamic range, not ideal clarity in the tutti but perfectly acceptable, audience audible but not too distracting. I think this is different recording than the one on Melodiya coupled with fourth (edit: it actually is the same recording).
Why it then doesn't fully work for me? It's the finale, up to there everything is perfectly fine (no exposition repeat in first, but I can live with that) and I'm still not completely sure what exactly bugs me there. I think it's two things: Mravinsky doesn't emphasize the cross rhythms as much as I would like, I like the finale to stutter amidst all the thrust and the Leningraders sound bit streamlined, second thing I don't like the way he keeps the horns far too much in check, it could be concert balance but I doubt.
Maybe someone else would have different opinion, so I've uploaded entire finale for anyone to hear:

If I took it correctly, "To stutter amid the thrust" in this last movement of the F major, as you put it, is to look for some sense of hesitation between the driven currents, to enhance the tension between the light of the singing themes and the dark, violent pulsating rhythms, eventually resolving in the smoothing quietness of the finale.
This kind of clarifying hesitation is what I usually sense when listening to Furtwangler. Contrary to the consistence of the Mravinsky approach (the different versions of the Brahms I heard are remarkably similar) the 1949 and 1954 versions of the F major by Furtwangler are good examples of two very different readings from the same conductor – look for the ample respiration and intimacy of the last movement in 1954 and compare it with the driven energy and violence in 1949.
And, perhaps fortunately, we the simple listeners may also like it differently in different moments of our life.
     


Carlos

[Drasko]

The DOREMI Brahms S2 (dated 12 Jun 1978) is identical to the JVC VDC-1010 edition (dated 12-13 Jun 1978). Comparative listening, particularly of the last mov., leaves me little doubt they were taken from the same performance. The recording date should indeed be June the 12th and not the 13th (this should be a live recording from the Mravinsky-Leningrad appearance at the Vienna Festival and the Brahms D major was performed on the 12th).
The Melodyia (1000801) and the Memoria (991006) editions are also identical to each other but probably from another performance - in the same year but at the St.Petersburg/Leningrad Philharmonic Great Hall on April 29th.
It is very interesting to compare these two Mravinsky recordings (April and June) because in many details they are very similar and almost look the same performance. If you compare the timings of the first 3 movements they are almost exactly the same.

Carlos  
         

Wow! Thanks for the info, and the effort.
I'm quite impressed, you have all four recordings. Yours must be one huge collection.

....the 1949 and 1954 versions of the F major by Furtwangler are good examples of two very different readings from the same conductor – look for the ample respiration and intimacy of the last movement in 1954 and compare it with the driven energy and violence in 1949.
And, perhaps fortunately, we the simple listeners may also like it differently in different moments of our life.

Haven't heard the 1949, will give it a try.

Completely agree, I said something similar in Bruckner 8th thread some time ago, which works for Brahms' 3 as well - thankfully there is quite enough different excellent readings around to satisfy everyones taste, and potential changing of those tastes during ones time.